On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 05:03:39PM +0000, Jan Medved (jmedved) wrote: > We updated the Network Topology drafts - use cases > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-amante-i2rs-topology-use-cases/) > and the topology information model > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-medved-i2rs-topology-im/). > Please have a look - comments & feedback would be greatly > appreciated. > > Also, as agreed at the last WG meeting in Berlin, we'd like to open > a discussion whether network topology (as defined in the above use > cases and the information model) is in the WG charter. The > statement "The ability to extract information about topology from > the network" in the WG charter says that topology is in charter, but > does not exactly say how.
Jan, WRT to the use-case draft: If section 2 would explicitly define Topology that would help. The draft abstract seems to define topology as "routing, forwarding and policy information". Section 1 seems to treat Topology as graph information only, separate from inventory and stastics. Section 3 seems to flip that and go back to the abstract's definition. WRT the IM draft: There seems to be a differentiation made between topology and topology model. If I read it correctly, a topology model consists of graph information (what I think of as topology), and other baggage. If I got that right, this seems similar to my mental model of ISIS: the topology consists of information describing how the nodes are connected, and IP information is essentially baggage that makes it possible to route IP packets. Personally I think defining a topology model that uses different graphs and corresponding baggage to provide useful abstractions is in scope. I'd like it if you could tighten up the language though. -Scott > > > > Thanks, Jan > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > i2rs@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list i2rs@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
